People who take this High and mighty stance often forget that many armor designs we're commonly "nonsensical", i.e., the codpiece. It wasn't common but it did exist and it didn't serve any purpose other than to accentuate the male form. The reason we don't see Boob plate armor in history is not because it was "nonsensical" but because it was very uncommon for women in a civilization that was "advanced" enough to wear armor, usually did not participate in martial affairs and if they did and had access to armor, they usually just grabbed what was available and didn't have a custom set made just for them. The Idea of Fantasy RPG is the ideal that your character can be a wear whatever they want and is considered practical for that universe. Please people, stop trying to argue fantasy worlds with earth history...smh. If people need it broken down into very easy to understand thoughts, watch Shadiversity "Is boob plat female armor dangerous". Just because it isn't historically common doesn't mean it cant be practical in a fantasy world or even the real world.
You people misundertand. When did I say it was bad for fantasy? I don't mind it in a fantasy or sci-fi setting, at all. In fact, I've always been one of the first people to defend sexy armor when the Puritans try to force them to cover up. I was simply pointing out boob armor wasn't REALISTIC, and it was never used irl from antiquity through the Middle Ages. It went back to my first post here about "bullet-proof nudity", which actually comes from an old rpg that sarcastically pokes fun at the fact that the less clothes people have on, the more likely it is for the bullets to miss them.
The high and mighty attitude comes from people who want to rewrite historical fact. There were plenty of female warriors outside of Middle Ages Europe, and they wore the same armor as the men. Boob shaped breastplate WAS impractical, which is why it was never used. The shape of it defeats the purpose of breastplate, and has a higher chance of breaking ribs and doing internal damage. Not to mention the discomfort from taking a heavy blow to the chest, then having to move around with a D-cup shaped piece of metal pounded against your skin. The integrity of the breastplate would be compromised against blunt weapons, and against weapons designed to defeat/puncture armor, it wouldn't matter if it had boobs or not.
Nowadays we have form-fitting underarmor made of fabric, so some of it is indeed made to fit the female shape. But again, we don't have flak jackets with boobs. I think some of you try too hard to cross fantasy into reality.
Why would a medieval blacksmith go out of his way to put boobs on breastplate after centuries of a tried and true design? Not only is it extra work for him (that only makes the armor impractical), it makes absolutely no sense to do it outside of ornamental aesthetics. And I'm sorry, but if you think codpieces served no function, you're wrong. They protected genitalia. Same as a modern athletic cup. The reason codpieces looked so ridiculous at one point is because some king told the blacksmith to give him a big, flashy codpiece. It still served a purpose. It was just "enhanced" to compensate for the fact that whatever was underneath the codpiece wasn't so impressive.
what store did you got 'em?
